[Bug 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
modulemd-1.0.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
modulemd-1.0.2-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
modulemd-1.0.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-12-01 10:54:58



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
modulemd-1.0.2-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
modulemd-1.0.2-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b3a627bbae

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
modulemd-1.0.2-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a749e2d8e4

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
modulemd-1.0.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7c6969bdc6

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
modulemd-1.0.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7bf4bd5611

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
modulemd-1.0.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7c6969bdc6

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
modulemd-1.0.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7bf4bd5611

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
modulemd-1.0.2-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a749e2d8e4

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035

Fedora Update System  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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
modulemd-1.0.2-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b3a627bbae

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/modulemd

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #12 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #11)

> I will add it there later when it will actually work.
> 
> > 2) with the new upstream release I can't see modlint now
> 
> ???
>  

Just looked into modulemd commits and found its moved to its own project
https://pagure.io/modlint and then modulemd 1.0.2 tarball is released.

See
https://pagure.io/modulemd/c/6bd924a7cb07bb756f47557352a7a4e562832a98?branch=master

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #11 from Miroslav Suchý  ---
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #10)
> Few things I want to note here
> 
> 1) python_provide macro is not used which I think is available on all Fedora
> as well as EPEL6+

As of today on Fedora 25:
$ rpm --eval '%python_provide foo'
%python_provide: ERROR: foo not recognized.

I will add it there later when it will actually work.

> 2) with the new upstream release I can't see modlint now

???

> 3) I don't know why following macros are need to be explicitly added to spec
> file which are already available by python2-rpm-macros package.
> %{!?__python2: %global __python2 /usr/bin/python2}
> %{!?py2_build: %global py2_build %{expand: CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{__python2}
> setup.py %{?py_setup_args} build --executable="%{__python2} -s"}}
> %{!?py2_install: %global py2_install %{expand: CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
> %{__python2} setup.py %{?py_setup_args} install -O1 --skip-build --root
> %{buildroot}}

OK. I will check it if it is available in EPEL too and will work with upstream
on removal  when it make sense.

> 4) there should be some uniformity needed for python2 and python3 macros. I
> see above 3 lines are defined in spec file for python2 but the same is not
> there for python3.

I suppose that is because of EPEL (and I do not create python3 subpackage
there, so just python2 variants). I just checked it and those macros are even
available in EPEL6. So I will create PR for upstream and will remove it there.


> APPROVED.

Thank you.

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---

Package Review
==

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


Few things I want to note here

1) python_provide macro is not used which I think is available on all Fedora as
well as EPEL6+

2) with the new upstream release I can't see modlint now

3) I don't know why following macros are need to be explicitly added to spec
file which are already available by python2-rpm-macros package.
%{!?__python2: %global __python2 /usr/bin/python2}
%{!?py2_build: %global py2_build %{expand: CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{__python2}
setup.py %{?py_setup_args} build --executable="%{__python2} -s"}}
%{!?py2_install: %global py2_install %{expand: CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
%{__python2} setup.py %{?py_setup_args} install -O1 --skip-build --root
%{buildroot}}}

4) there should be some uniformity needed for python2 and python3 macros. I see
above 3 lines are defined in spec file for python2 but the same is not there
for python3.

I think as python2/3 macros are already available, good to drop them from spec
file.


= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/parag/1376035-modulemd/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 40960 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]: 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]: 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 

[Bug 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #9 from Miroslav Suchý  ---
Updated:
Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/modulemd.spec
SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/modulemd-1.0.2-1.fc25.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #8 from Petr Šabata  ---
1.0.1 released :)

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #7 from Petr Šabata  ---
Just released the first stable release.
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/modulemd/1.0.0

Note this is incompatible with the development releases that COPR probably
relies on.

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #6 from Petr Šabata  ---
I'll incorporate some long-planned changes and do a proper "1.0" release within
the next week or two.  This will break the API and will affect COPR (among
other things), so we'll discuss it some more.

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #5 from Miroslav Suchý  ---
(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #4)
> @Miroslav, I'd actually vote for postponing official packaging until there's
> a stable release with a stable API.  That might happen once we decide how to
> proceed with the module versioning changes we discussed at Flock.

Copr-frontend already use python-modulemd and right now there is broken
dependency. So I want to have it in Fedora as soon as 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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #4 from Petr Šabata  ---
Thanks for the feedback, I'll reflect it in the SPEC file at some point.

@Miroslav, I'd actually vote for postponing official packaging until there's a
stable release with a stable API.  That might happen once we decide how to
proceed with the module versioning changes we discussed at Flock.

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #2)
> (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #1)
> > 1) Python packaging guidelines recommends usage of macros
> > %{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{name}}
> > %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{name}}
> >
> > Can they be not used in this package spec? See
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file
> 
> I had some mysterious issues with these in COPR, IIRC.
> I don't know if it's still the case.

afaics, current modulemd.spec and using the python_provide macros is giving
same provides results on python2-modulemd and python3-modulemd subpackages

> 
> > 2) I see version in setup.py as "0.1". I think this package should use
> > version as 0.1
> > 
> > 3) tarball can be generated using "python setup.py sdist". As upstream not
> > released yet any tarball, can modulemd-0.1.tar.gz be used here? Just add in
> > comment how this tarball is generated.
> 
> This is still a pre-release quality code.
> 
> We can do some quick tweaks and do an official release if Miroslav wants
> this in Fedora already.  The specification is still evolving and we break
> API every now and then, though...

Whichever way is chosen can we have some steps added to generate the tarball to
try to verify its checksum.


> > 3) URL should be https://pagure.io/modulemd
> 
> Yes, it should :)

Submitted PR https://pagure.io/modulemd/pull-request/14 ;-)


4) One more thing as this package is python providing module let's name it
according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming#Python_source_package_naming as
python-modulemd.

5) %autosetup can be used instead "%setup -q"

6) Subpackage modlint is missing Requires: python3-modulemd

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata  ---
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #1)
> 1) Python packaging guidelines recommends usage of macros
> %{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{name}}
> %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{name}}
>
> Can they be not used in this package spec? See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file

I had some mysterious issues with these in COPR, IIRC.
I don't know if it's still the case.

> 2) I see version in setup.py as "0.1". I think this package should use
> version as 0.1
> 
> 3) tarball can be generated using "python setup.py sdist". As upstream not
> released yet any tarball, can modulemd-0.1.tar.gz be used here? Just add in
> comment how this tarball is generated.

This is still a pre-release quality code.

We can do some quick tweaks and do an official release if Miroslav wants this
in Fedora already.  The specification is still evolving and we break API every
now and then, though...

> 3) URL should be https://pagure.io/modulemd

Yes, it should :)

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035



--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
1) Python packaging guidelines recommends usage of macros
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{name}}
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{name}}

Can they be not used in this package spec? See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file


2) I see version in setup.py as "0.1". I think this package should use version
as 0.1

3) tarball can be generated using "python setup.py sdist". As upstream not
released yet any tarball, can modulemd-0.1.tar.gz be used here? Just add in
comment how this tarball is generated.

3) URL should be https://pagure.io/modulemd

-- 
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 1376035] Review Request: modulemd - Module metadata manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376035

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||panem...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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