[Bug 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412

Andrew Schorr  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-11-26 15:58:48



-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #24 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gawkextlib

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #23 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
(In reply to Andrew Schorr from comment #22)
> Updated spec file here:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/rpm-specs/gawkextlib.spec

LGTM!

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412

Andrew Schorr  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review+  |fedora-review?



--- Comment #22 from Andrew Schorr  ---
Updated spec file here:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/rpm-specs/gawkextlib.spec

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #21 from Andrew Schorr  ---
I should also note that not all gawk extension libraries will require
gawkextlib. It is an optional support library. So we cannot rely upon solving
the problem that way. I guess you are saying that the new gawk could say that
it conflicts with a specific version of gawkextlib, but that gets messy if it
also needs to Conflict with 10 other gawk extension libraries. I think the
clean solution is to specify the API version. Am I missing something?

Regards,
Andy

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #20 from Andrew Schorr  ---
Hi Dee'Kej,

Maybe I am confused, but on my Fedora 26 laptop with gawkextlib and gawk-xml
installed, I see this:

[schorr@ajs-t530 ~]$ rpm --requires -q gawkextlib
/sbin/ldconfig
/sbin/ldconfig
gawk
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
[schorr@ajs-t530 ~]$ rpm --requires -q gawk-xml
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
expat
gawk
info
info
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libexpat.so.1()(64bit)
libgawkextlib.so.0()(64bit)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)

So yes, I can modify the gawkextlib rpm spec file to require a specific version
of gawk, but I don't think that's a great idea. The gawk version and the API
version are two different things, and I think the gawk rpm should provide the
API version that it actually supports. If gawkextlib requires gawk >= 4.2.0,
that won't help us if gawk 4.3 actually changes the API. Then we would have
breakage.

Also, as you can see, the gawk-xml rpm does not currently require any
particular version of gawkextlib, so we are not transitively saved on that
front. I think both gawkextlib and gawk-xml may need to require the correct
gawk API version.

Am I confused, or do we need to add a Provides to the gawk rpm specifying the
API version? And if so, how do we handle major/minor issues?

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #19 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
Hello Andy,

first to start - we need to take into account that rpmbuild is actually quite
clever regarding the automatic detection of library requirements. If the
gawk-xml will be build against gawk-4.1, it will require at least the gawk-4.1
version. (Taken that gawk is correctly versioning its shared libraries...)

In other words, if we make sure the correct version of gawk will be used during
build of gawk-xml, we should be at least ok regarding the ABI compatibility.
That can be achieved by using the Requires and/or BuildRequires correctly.

Regarding the API compatibility... AFAIK, we don't have any gawk-api-major
package/binary file, right? I'm not sure that

> Provides: gawk-api-major = 1
> Provides: gawk-api-minor = 1

would work. I will discuss it with my colleague.

My suggested approach to this (if I understood the problem correctly) would be
this:
1) Wait for gawk-4.2 release, rebase it in Rawhide and see if it would be
possible to get it into F27 as well.
2) Make necessary changes in gawk-xml and gawkextlib specfiles as needed, for
Rawhide (and F27 if needed).
3) Make sure we release the gawk-xml and gawkextlib after the gawk-4.2 lands in
Rawhide (and F27 possibly).

The necessary changes in 2) that should be enough (IMHO):

* In gawkextlib:

Requires: gawk >= 4.2.0 # The exact version will be confirmed later

IIRC, the gawkextlib is required by any extensions for gawk. And because the
gawkextlib will be build against correct gawk version, therefore the extension
(like gawk-xml) should also be using correct version of gawk (because the
dependency in this case is transitive).

Do you agree that this should be enough, or did I miss some important point
that will needs to be addressed as well? :)

  -- Dee'Kej --

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #18 from Andrew Schorr  ---
Hi David,

Just as I thought we were all set to go, I realized that there is a subtle
versioning issue here. We are soon going to release gawk version 4.2, and that
versions bumps the major API version from 1 to 2. When the major API version
changes, that signals an incompatibility with previous versions. If gawk 4.2
tries to load a gawk-xml extension that was compiled in a gawk 4.1 build
environment, the program will issue an error message about the version
mismatch, and then it will exit.

I'm not quite sure how to address this. The current gawk-xml 1.0.6 version I
just realized should build successfully against both the current gawk 4.1
releases and the new 4.2 release coming soon. But if it's built against 4.1 and
then gawk is upgraded to 4.2, it will stop working. It doesn't seem as if the
standard "Requires:" and "BuildRequires:" tags capture the subtlety of this
situation.

It's not quite accurate to say "Requires: gawk = 4.1", since this package could
be built against 4.2. But lacking a better solution, is it safest to change the
Requires tags to say "gawk = 4.1"? Or is there a better way to address this
situation?

I suppose we might want to patch the gawk.spec file to add "Provides:" tags for
the gawk major and minor API versions:
Provides: gawk-api-major = 1
Provides: gawk-api-minor = 1
But is there then some way to specify that the gawk extension libraries will
require versions calculated at build time?

In any case, I think it's probably a good idea to add the gawk-api versions to
the gawk spec, since gawk versions may change more quickly than API versions.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412

Jaroslav Škarvada  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jskar...@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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #17 from Andrew J. Schorr  ---
I updated the URL in the spec file to say https instead of http. I uploaded a
new tarball, spec file, and source rpm.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #16 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
(In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #15)
> (In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #13)
> > Okay, so for some reason the SHA256 hashes still don't match for the package
> > I have downloaded and the package fedore-review has downloaded.
> > 
> > However, doing manual check on both of these sources, I get the same result:
> > 271ea0d473fc921db65cbc38e74e3bde42a095a38dbac0207e199dfda705 
> > gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz
> > 
> > This looks like some issue of fedora-review package.
> 
> It can be caused by the fact that the source URL points to a multi-level
> redirection to the actual URL containing the data:
> 
> $ curl -svo/dev/null
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz -L
> 2>&1 | grep Location
> < Location:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz
> < Location:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz/
> download
> < Location:
> https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/gawkextlib/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.
> gz?r==1495634539_mirror=master
> < Location:
> https://master.dl.sourceforge.net/project/gawkextlib/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz

Hmm, but still that should contain the same package, right? Looks like,
according to Andrew, it was just outdated... :)

> I am not sure if fedora-review follows these redirects while checking
> hashes.  Anyway, it is a good practice to use https:// source URL where
> possible.

Yes, I agree. We should make the use of https:// where possible. :)

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #15 from Kamil Dudka  ---
(In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #13)
> Okay, so for some reason the SHA256 hashes still don't match for the package
> I have downloaded and the package fedore-review has downloaded.
> 
> However, doing manual check on both of these sources, I get the same result:
> 271ea0d473fc921db65cbc38e74e3bde42a095a38dbac0207e199dfda705 
> gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz
> 
> This looks like some issue of fedora-review package.

It can be caused by the fact that the source URL points to a multi-level
redirection to the actual URL containing the data:

$ curl -svo/dev/null
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz -L
2>&1 | grep Location
< Location:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz
< Location:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz/download
< Location:
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/gawkextlib/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz?r==1495634539_mirror=master
< Location:
https://master.dl.sourceforge.net/project/gawkextlib/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz

I am not sure if fedora-review follows these redirects while checking hashes. 
Anyway, it is a good practice to use https:// source URL where possible.

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #14 from Andrew J. Schorr  ---
I guess this is probably due to changes in the spec file over time. I just
uploaded a new version of:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz

I believe that this should match the tarball inside of:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/rpms/gawkextlib-1.0.2-1.fc25.src.rpm

I hope that helps.

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #13 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
Okay, so for some reason the SHA256 hashes still don't match for the package I
have downloaded and the package fedore-review has downloaded.

However, doing manual check on both of these sources, I get the same result:
271ea0d473fc921db65cbc38e74e3bde42a095a38dbac0207e199dfda705 
gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz

This looks like some issue of fedora-review package.

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

[Bug 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #12 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
Sorry for the delay, I was struggling to run fedora-review tool because of BZ
#1350930. Anyway, I made it to work, so here are the rest of necessary
formalities...

rpmlint result (specfile):
==
> Checking: gawkextlib-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rmplint result (*.rpm):
===
> gawkextlib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML, ml, x 
> ml
->> The %description is mentioning the exact package 'gawk-xml' [OK]

> gawkextlib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pgsql -> SQL
->> The %description is mentioning the exact package 'gawk-pgsql' [OK]

> gawkextlib.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libgawkextlib.so.0.0.0 
> exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
->> Shared library calls exit(3) - this is something that should be either
fixed or explained if this is safe to do so. [WARNING]

> gawkextlib.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
> gawkextlib.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
->> This is "feature" of fedora-rawhide builds. [OK]

> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

rpmlint result (*-devel.rpm):
=
> gawkextlib-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
->> The header file is in correct location. The other file is symlink, which is
non-binary, but this is correct. [OK]

> gawkextlib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
->> Andrew already mentioned the lack of documentation in upstream ATM, but the
header file itself should be commented sufficiently. [OK]

> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

===
fedora-review results:
===
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/dkaspar/Downloads/reviews/review-gawkextlib/diff.txt
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL

>> Andrew most likely modified the package again after I donwloaded it and ran 
>> the fedora-review on it. I've checked the *.src.rpm and its sane. [OK]


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "FSF All Permissive", "Unknown or
 generated". 31 files have unknown license.
> The whole project is licensed under GPLv3+. Some files use FSF copyright note 
> stating that re-licensing to GPL is allowed, and therefore used.

[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]: 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
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 gawkextlib-debuginfo
> We are not genereating debuginfo manually, mock does it now automatically. 
> This is most likely bug either of mock or fedora-review package. [OK]

[x]: Reviewer 

[Bug 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #11 from Andrew J. Schorr  ---
Thanks. I updated the files in
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/rpms/

Actually, I updated the gawkextlib.spec file, and I uploaded a new version of
the source rpm built now on Fedora 25 (gawkextlib-1.0.2-1.fc25.src.rpm), since
I no longer use F24.

Regards,
Andy

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment|0   |1
#1281075 is||
   obsolete||



-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
(In reply to Andrew J. Schorr from comment #8)
> (In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #6)
> > Created attachment 1281075 [details]
> > gawextlib.spec
> > 
> > Here's the specfile with the changes I've proposed, and slightly adjusted
> > indentation (nothing significant), in case you want to use it. :)
> 
> I incorporated most of the changes, but I'm a bit confused by the
> %description section.
> 
> ...
>
> Do you really intend to have 2 separate paragraphs like that? It seems 
> repetitive. I'm guessing that you intended to delete the first sentence.

Yes, you're right. I guess I forgot to press the 'dd' in Vim. :)

Regarding the naming scheme, I see now the details completely, so I think we
can proceed now. ;)

I'm giving this the fedora-review+, and I check the FPG to what else needs to
be done from my side tomorrow (I need to leave office soon).

Best regards,

Dee'Kej

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #9 from Andrew J. Schorr  ---
Created attachment 1281118
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1281118=edit
gawkextlib.spec

Here is my latest version. It should be the same as yours except for the
description. How does this look?

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #8 from Andrew J. Schorr  ---
(In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #6)
> Created attachment 1281075 [details]
> gawextlib.spec
> 
> Here's the specfile with the changes I've proposed, and slightly adjusted
> indentation (nothing significant), in case you want to use it. :)

I incorporated most of the changes, but I'm a bit confused by the %description
section. You have in your attachment:

%description
%{name} is a library providing helpful support functions for gawk extension
libraries.

%{name} is a library providing common support infrastructure for gawk
extensions. This particular package provides the 'libgawkextlib', which is used
by various gawk extension modules -- for example gawk-xml, gawk-pgsql, and
more.

Do you really intend to have 2 separate paragraphs like that? It seems 
repetitive. I'm guessing that you intended to delete the first sentence. I
am attaching an updated version with this description:

%description
%{name} is a library providing common support infrastructure for gawk
extensions. This package provides 'libgawkextlib', which is used by various
gawk extension modules -- for example gawk-xml, gawk-pgsql, and more.


Does that look good?

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
You are 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412

Andrew J. Schorr  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(ajschorr@alumni.p |
   |rinceton.edu)   |



--- Comment #7 from Andrew J. Schorr  ---
Hi!

(In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #5)
> Yeah, I'm aware that those are not same. :) I was just thinking to come up
> with some naming schema to avoid some possible issues in the future. It's
> really pain in the a** to be forced to create a pacake with new name just to
> solve some problems. ;)

Understood. I agree that it's important to get this right.

> So, currently we have:
> * gawk [the main package]
> * gawk-devel [subpackage]
> * gawk-doc [subpackage]
> * gawk-debuginfo [automatically created subpackage]
> 
> In case we will have the 'gawkextlib' package (to follow FPG rule to have
> the name as close to upstream name as possible), then I wouls suggest this
> naming schema:
> * gawkextlib [the main package, which is necessary for your other extensions]
> * gawkextlib-devel [subpackage necessary for developers]
> * gawkextlib-doc   [subpackage containing documentation, if any exists]
> * gawkextlib-xml   [the module/extension used with gawkextlib]
> * gawkextlib-pgsql [the module/extension used with gawkextlib]
> * gawkextlib-mpfr  [the module/extension used with gawkextlib]
> 
> This way it would be clearly visible by the name that the modules/extensions
> are part of the the bigger "collection", and that they cannot function
> without the main (base) package.

I understand where you're coming from, but not all of the modules in the
gawkextlib collection require the use of the gawkextlib support library.
Some modules use it, and others do not. We would like these to be thought
of as gawk extension modules, not gawkextlib extension modules. Conceptually,
we're aiming for something like CPAN. Those are perl modules, not CPAN modules,
as I understand it.

> I was even thinking that you could create these modules/extensions as
> subpackages of the gawkextlib, but I see that you versioning is not united
> across these packages. The maintenance for this approach might be simpler,
> but updating a module would require rebuild of whole thing.

I definitely do not want to do that. Again, the conceptual model here is
CPAN. We want each module to be maintained independently. IMHO, it would not
be a good idea to package them together.

> If you do not want to create this "collection" as subpackages, you can just
> create each package separate as it is, which will look the same as above,
> but will be versioned & build separately. You will have more specfiles to
> maintain, but IMHO this might be the best course of action. :)

I agree that they must be maintained separately, with a separate spec file
for each one. The gawkextlib project attempts to provide a template that will
make this easier.

> In case your modules/extensions are able to function *without* the
> 'gawkextlib', then I would follow this naming scheme:

(As I mentioned above, some of the modules are able to function without
gawkextlib, and some require it. That decision is made separately by each
developer depending on whether he wants to use the support functions in the
gawkextlib library.)

> * gawkextlib [optional library for gawk]
> * gawkextlib-devel [subpackage necessary for developers]
> * gawkextlib-doc   [subpackage containing documentation, if any exists]
> * gawk-xml [independent extension to gawkextlib used for gawk itself]
> * gawk-pgsql   [independent extension to gawkextlib used for gawk itself]
> * gawk-mpfr[independent extension to gawkextlib used for gawk itself]

That is my preferred naming convention, and I think is consistent with the
approach we have taken so far.

> Ah, OK. In that case I would just slightly rewrite the current %description
> to match the *Summary*, maybe like this? :)
> 
> "%{name} is a library providing common support infrastructure for gawk
> extensions. This particular package provides the 'libgawkextlib', which is
> used by various gawk extension modules -- for example gawk-xml, gawk-pgsql,
> and more."

I updated the description to the following:

%{name} is a library providing common support infrastructure for gawk
extensions. This package provides 'libgawkextlib', which is used by various
gawk extension modules -- for example gawk-xml, gawk-pgsql, and more.

Is that OK?

> I don't know what the h*ll I wrote there... :D Seriously, that sentence from
> me does not make any sense. I'm not surprised you were confused... :D
> Looking at the current specfile, it seems OK. ;)

:-)

> "The %{name}-devel package contains the header files and libraries
> needed to develop gawk extension modules that use %{name} facilities."

I made that change.

> 

[Bug 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #6 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
Created attachment 1281075
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1281075=edit
gawextlib.spec

Here's the specfile with the changes I've proposed, and slightly adjusted
indentation (nothing significant), in case you want to use 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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ajschorr@alumni.princeton.e
   ||du
  Flags||needinfo?(ajschorr@alumni.p
   ||rinceton.edu)



--- Comment #5 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
Hello Andrew,

(In reply to Andrew J. Schorr from comment #4)
> Hi, sorry for the long delay -- I have been extremely busy with regular
> work.
Don't worry about it. As you can see, I have been also completely engaged with
my regular work... :-/ (I've become upstream maintainer/developer for
initscripts.)


> > 0) Is this project already packaged for some other distributions? Which 
> > ones?
> > Could you please provide the links those packages?
> 
> No. This will be the first distribution to include it.
In that case, I thank you for chosing Fedora as your first choice. I'm sorry
for the delay in my response, and I hope you will like our Fedora community at
some point! ;)

> I am open to other names, but please consider that comparing gawkextlib
> to gawk-xml is like comparing apples to oranges. The gawkextlib package
> provides a support library, not an actual gawk extenstion. The gawkextlib
> shared library provides APIs that are used by various gawk extension
> libraries such as gawk-xml, gawk-pgsql, etc. So it's really a different
> beast. The gawkextlib rpm provides no end-user functionality. It provides
> only a header file and shared library for use by actual gawk extension
> libraries.

Yeah, I'm aware that those are not same. :) I was just thinking to come up with
some naming schema to avoid some possible issues in the future. It's really
pain in the a** to be forced to create a pacake with new name just to solve
some problems. ;)

So, currently we have:
* gawk [the main package]
* gawk-devel [subpackage]
* gawk-doc [subpackage]
* gawk-debuginfo [automatically created subpackage]

In case we will have the 'gawkextlib' package (to follow FPG rule to have the
name as close to upstream name as possible), then I wouls suggest this naming
schema:
* gawkextlib [the main package, which is necessary for your other extensions]
* gawkextlib-devel [subpackage necessary for developers]
* gawkextlib-doc   [subpackage containing documentation, if any exists]
* gawkextlib-xml   [the module/extension used with gawkextlib]
* gawkextlib-pgsql [the module/extension used with gawkextlib]
* gawkextlib-mpfr  [the module/extension used with gawkextlib]

This way it would be clearly visible by the name that the modules/extensions
are part of the the bigger "collection", and that they cannot function without
the main (base) package.

I was even thinking that you could create these modules/extensions as
subpackages of the gawkextlib, but I see that you versioning is not united
across these packages. The maintenance for this approach might be simpler, but
updating a module would require rebuild of whole thing.

If you do not want to create this "collection" as subpackages, you can just
create each package separate as it is, which will look the same as above, but
will be versioned & build separately. You will have more specfiles to maintain,
but IMHO this might be the best course of action. :)

In case your modules/extensions are able to function *without* the
'gawkextlib', then I would follow this naming scheme:
* gawkextlib [optional library for gawk]
* gawkextlib-devel [subpackage necessary for developers]
* gawkextlib-doc   [subpackage containing documentation, if any exists]
* gawk-xml [independent extension to gawkextlib used for gawk itself]
* gawk-pgsql   [independent extension to gawkextlib used for gawk itself]
* gawk-mpfr[independent extension to gawkextlib used for gawk itself]

> > 3) Try to keep the 'Summary' more simple, like for example:
> > >  Extension libraries for gawk
> > ... Current summarry seems to me to vague, because using word library 2 
> > times
> > in a simple sentence is kind of confusing.
> 
> Hmmm. "Extension libraries for gawk" is not accurate. This is a library that
> provides APIs for use by gawk extension libraries. I'm not sure how else to
> say
> it. Would it be more clear if "gawk extension libraries" were replaced by
> "gawk
> extension modules"? I could also replace "infrastructure" if that's somehow
> problematic. Here's a possible rewrite: "Library providing support functions
> used by several gawk extension modules." Is that better than "Library
> providing
> common infrastructure for gawk extension libraries"?

Yeah, I think
> Library providing common infrastructure for gawk extension modules
is OK. ;)

> > 6) (In reply to Andrew Schorr from comment #1)
> > > FYI, I updated the spec file to 

[Bug 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412

Andrew J. Schorr  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||aschorr@telemetry-investmen
   ||ts.com
  Flags|needinfo?   |



--- Comment #4 from Andrew J. Schorr  ---
Hi, sorry for the long delay -- I have been extremely busy with regular work. I
uploaded a new version of the spec file and my responses to your 24 comments
are interspersed below:

> 0) Is this project already packaged for some other distributions? Which ones?
> Could you please provide the links those packages?

No. This will be the first distribution to include it.

> 1) Is there any specific reason, why the project is named gawkextlib? I see
> your second review request for gawk-xml. If I should follow the Fedora
> packaging naming guidelines, I would prefer that this (current) package would
> be named gawk-extlib, so there will be uniformity between other gawk packages
> as well...

I am open to other names, but please consider that comparing gawkextlib
to gawk-xml is like comparing apples to oranges. The gawkextlib package
provides a support library, not an actual gawk extenstion. The gawkextlib
shared library provides APIs that are used by various gawk extension
libraries such as gawk-xml, gawk-pgsql, etc. So it's really a different
beast. The gawkextlib rpm provides no end-user functionality. It provides
only a header file and shared library for use by actual gawk extension
libraries.

> 2) Please, remove the TABs in the specfile, so the indentation is same for
> everyone. Use whitespaces instead.

Done.

> 3) Try to keep the 'Summary' more simple, like for example:
> >  Extension libraries for gawk
> ... Current summarry seems to me to vague, because using word library 2 times
> in a simple sentence is kind of confusing.

Hmmm. "Extension libraries for gawk" is not accurate. This is a library that
provides APIs for use by gawk extension libraries. I'm not sure how else to say
it. Would it be more clear if "gawk extension libraries" were replaced by "gawk
extension modules"? I could also replace "infrastructure" if that's somehow
problematic. Here's a possible rewrite: "Library providing support functions
used by several gawk extension modules." Is that better than "Library providing
common infrastructure for gawk extension libraries"?

> 4) The Group tag is no longer necessary, and it shouldn't be in new specfiles.
> For more info, please, see:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

Thanks. I removed it.

> 5) Unless you have multiple sources, it's less confusing to use 'Source' tag
> instead of 'Source0'.

I changed "Source0" to "Source".

> 6) (In reply to Andrew Schorr from comment #1)
> > FYI, I updated the spec file to make this minor change:
> > 
> > @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Release:1%{?dist}
> >  License:   GPLv3+
> >  Group: Development/Libraries
> >  URL:   http://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib
> > -Source0:  
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> > +Source0:   %{url}/files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> >  BuildRequires: /usr/include/gawkapi.h
> >  Requires:  gawk
> 
> Actually, I think this change make the Source URL shorter, but for new
> maintainers in the future, it might be a little bit obfuscating. My personal
> preference is to keep the full URL for the source tarball, with only %{name}
> and %{version} in it. However, this is just my opinion, the final decision
> about this will be on you... :)

I made this change because I searched for other new packages currently in the
review process and noted that another maintainer had requested that this change
be made. I can't remember the name of that package at the moment. It seems that
this may be a matter of personal preference. I prefer to avoid repetition, so I
like using %{url} in the Source definition.

> 7) I see you have used the /usr/include/gawkapi.h as the BuildRequires. Again,
> this is too much obfuscated, because other people would have to find out from
> where this header file comes from (is it from gawk or gawkextlib?). Since this
> is normally part of the gawk package (according to 'dnf whatprovides
> ), you should just use simple form of:
> > BuildRequires:  gawk
> 
> UPDATE: Looking at the gawk package itself, I will most likely split it into
> base package and devel supbackage. The /usr/include/gawkapi.h will be located
> inside the gawk-devel subpackage.

I am changing this to say "BuildRequires: gawk-devel".

> 8) %description - it is generally more save to use the name of 'gawkextlib' in
> the description. According to Fedora Package Guidelines (FPG), there might be
> instances where the %{name} might not 

[Bug 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?



--- Comment #3 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
Another set of notes about the package:
20) Since this package provides a library and other packages might be linking
to it, is there a reason why this software is not packaged under some LGPL
license? Legal stuff is generally problematic, this is just a question.

21) I see the m4/ folder inside the source package. Are you using automate
(autoconf) for anything? Because if you do, you probably need additional
BuildRequires for 'autoconf'...

23) Looking at the content of README file - it describes the use of
libgawkextlib. This is suitable for the %description devel section. And the
notes on how to build package from git sources are considered irrelevant. IOW:
* lets drop README file
* move the first section of it into %description devel
* ignore the info about building from git-sources

24) Do you have any documentation for the library, for example in some markdown
format? If so, it would be good to add it into the sourceball, because after it
we could transform the markdown into man page... :)

Feel free to reach to me, if you need any help. ;)

-- 
You are 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

[Bug 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #2 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
So, I will lay down some questions/notes regarding the package, as they will
come during the review:

0) Is this project already packaged for some other distributions? Which ones?
Could you please provide the links those packages?

1) Is there any specific reason, why the project is named gawkextlib? I see
your second review request for gawk-xml. If I should follow the Fedora
packaging naming guidelines, I would prefer that this (current) package would
be named gawk-extlib, so there will be uniformity between other gawk packages
as well...

2) Please, remove the TABs in the specfile, so the indentation is same for
everyone. Use whitespaces instead.

3) Try to keep the 'Summary' more simple, like for example:
>  Extension libraries for gawk
... Current summarry seems to me to vague, because using word library 2 times
in a simple sentence is kind of confusing.

4) The Group tag is no longer necessary, and it shouldn't be in new specfiles.
For more info, please, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

5) Unless you have multiple sources, it's less confusing to use 'Source' tag
instead of 'Source0'.

6) (In reply to Andrew Schorr from comment #1)
> FYI, I updated the spec file to make this minor change:
> 
> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Release:1%{?dist}
>  License:   GPLv3+
>  Group: Development/Libraries
>  URL:   http://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib
> -Source0:  
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> +Source0:   %{url}/files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
>  BuildRequires: /usr/include/gawkapi.h
>  Requires:  gawk

Actually, I think this change make the Source URL shorter, but for new
maintainers in the future, it might be a little bit obfuscating. My personal
preference is to keep the full URL for the source tarball, with only %{name}
and %{version} in it. However, this is just my opinion, the final decision
about this will be on you... :)

7) I see you have used the /usr/include/gawkapi.h as the BuildRequires. Again,
this is too much obfuscated, because other people would have to find out from
where this header file comes from (is it from gawk or gawkextlib?). Since this
is normally part of the gawk package (according to 'dnf whatprovides
), you should just use simple form of:
> BuildRequires:  gawk

UPDATE: Looking at the gawk package itself, I will most likely split it into
base package and devel supbackage. The /usr/include/gawkapi.h will be located
inside the gawk-devel subpackage.

8) %description - it is generally more save to use the name of 'gawkextlib' in
the description. According to Fedora Package Guidelines (FPG), there might be
instances where the %{name} might not expand properly, which is not correct.

And I wouldn't be affraid to use more specific description, like the one you
have on the sourceforge webpage:

"The gawkextlib project provides several extension libraries for gawk (GNU
AWK), as well as libgawkextlib containing some APIs that are useful for
building gawk extension libraries."

In that case, it's the same for people comparing if the source code @
sourceforg is the same as the source code packaged in Fedora. :)

9) There's no need to use '-n %{name}-devel' in the %package section. rpmbuild
should be clever enough these days to put the dash (-) there automatically. So
you can just use:
> %package devel

Update: This applies in case if you want to have the %{name} followed by dash
and the suffix. It can be useful in case you need something like this:
> %package -n lib-%{name}-devel
In this way, you can override the default behaviour of rpmbuild.

10) The 'Requires' tag for /usr/include/gawkapi.h in devel supbackage is not
necessary, because the gawkextlib (base package) already requires gawk, and the
devel subpackage is depending on its base package.

11) Similar to point 9), you can just use "%description devel".

12) Please, if not necessary for some significant reason, try *not* use %setup
-q anymore. rpmbuild is able to %autosetup, which will automatically apply all
the listed patches (PatchN), if they are correctly formatted. It makes
maintaing of packages in the future much simple. More info you can find here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Applying_patches
and here:
http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/Autosetup

13) The 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' is no longer necessary for building packages for
Fedora. It is beening cleaned up automatically.

14) %makeinstall macro is "forbidden". Use some other macros instead:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used

15) You're not calling the ldconfig for (un)installation of devel subpackages,
which is not correct:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries

So, basically, you're missing something like this:
> 

[Bug 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #1 from Andrew Schorr  ---
FYI, I updated the spec file to make this minor change:

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Release:1%{?dist}
 License:   GPLv3+
 Group: Development/Libraries
 URL:   http://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib
-Source0:  
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
+Source0:   %{url}/files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
 BuildRequires: /usr/include/gawkapi.h
 Requires:  gawk

-- 
You are 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

[Bug 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||dkas...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dkas...@redhat.com



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412

Andrew Schorr  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 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