[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DEFERRED --- Comment #29 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-05-08 03:12:53 EDT --- ping -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #28 from Brennan Ashton bash...@brennanashton.com 2009-04-19 23:19:04 EDT --- Sorry ran out of time this weekend, I have a lot on my fedora plate right now. I will try in the next couple days. It should not take too much time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|DEFERRED| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DEFERRED --- Comment #24 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-04-14 15:00:44 EDT --- Stale review. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #25 from Brennan Ashton bash...@brennanashton.com 2009-04-15 01:09:51 EDT --- Sorry, but I got a little short on time the last month or so. It appears that this has some issues with SELINUX that are above me, and I am not interested in this package enough to track them down and submit patches to upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #26 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-04-15 01:25:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #25) Sorry, but I got a little short on time the last month or so. It appears that this has some issues with SELINUX that are above me, and I am not interested in this package enough to track them down and submit patches to upstream. If selinux's the only issue, I'll gladly help get the policy right; feel free to reopen and finish the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #27 from Brennan Ashton bash...@brennanashton.com 2009-04-15 01:43:21 EDT --- Ok I will take another stab at it this weekend. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #23 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-30 15:30:42 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #22 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-22 14:12:28 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lkund...@v3.sk Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #19 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-17 10:07:08 EDT --- 1.) devel subpackage Why does this have a devel subpackage, and not just everything in one package? I'd say compilers are used exclusively for development. 2.) You don't install shared libraries %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig This is not needed 3.) License Most files are LGPLv2+, libtcc1.c is GPLv2+ with linking exception. Therefore the right license tag should probably be: License: LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ with exceptions 4.) libtcc (In reply to comment #18) [...] IMO, this begs for more questions: * Is /usr/lib/libtcc.a located correctly? Should it be a generally applicable library (e.g. usable by GCC compiled files) then this location is likely correct. * Is /usr/include/libtcc.h located correctly? I doubt it. IMO, it should be a tcc internal header, tcc should implicitly pull in interally from some internal include file search path. libtcc is not used internally. It's a compiler library that allows you to embed C compiler in your programs. Therefore libtcc should be compiled dynamically, not statically. Also, guidelines for -devel packages would apply here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #20 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-17 10:08:43 EDT --- Please note that once you make libtcc a dynamic library, 2.) would no longer apply. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #21 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-17 10:10:15 EDT --- 5.) Compiler flags use gcc -O2 -Wall -c -o libtcc1.o libtcc1.c gcc -O2 -Wall -c -o bcheck.o bcheck.c Why aren't optflags used here? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-13 14:24:21 EDT --- I do not see why this would be bad here and ok with gcc? tinycc-devel.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Well, rpm -ql gcc and look at what gcc puts into /usr/lib/gcc (even on x86_64, interestingly). All sorts of object files and libraries, along with some headers. Look at what this package puts into /usr/lib/tcc: Some header files. Hence the question about whether they are arch-dependent and whether they would be better in /usr/share. I don't think it's a huge issue, but the question was worth asking. If you believe the files are arch specific (or would be if this worked on anything other than i386) then I think the files are OK where they are. As for the selinux issue, please ask fedora-selinux-list for guidance. You may be able to get some help there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #18 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2009-03-14 00:16:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) I do not see why this would be bad here and ok with gcc? tinycc-devel.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Well, rpm -ql gcc and look at what gcc puts into /usr/lib/gcc (even on x86_64, interestingly). All sorts of object files and libraries, along with some headers. These are GCC internal files and in fact are host-arch-independent from GCC's POV (compile-time demands). The reasons they are in /usr/lib/gcc instead of /usr/share are widely historic (/usr/lib/packagename predates invention of /usr/share) and related to run-time demands (/usr/lib/gcc/target/... may contain run-time-used shared libs). Look at what this package puts into /usr/lib/tcc: Some header files. IMO, this begs for more questions: * Is /usr/lib/libtcc.a located correctly? Should it be a generally applicable library (e.g. usable by GCC compiled files) then this location is likely correct. * Is /usr/include/libtcc.h located correctly? I doubt it. IMO, it should be a tcc internal header, tcc should implicitly pull in interally from some internal include file search path. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-12 21:38:40 EDT --- Indeed, rpmlint produces those complaints; the only one that does concern me is the only-non-binary-in-usr-lib one. There are a couple of questions: What are the files in the -devel package used for? If you need them to compile things with tinycc, I don't see the point in having a separate -devel package at all. I tried running one of the example files without the -devel package installed and it failed due to a missing tcclib.h file, so it seems like you really do need the -devel package installed just to make use of the base package. Are those files really arch-specific? If they are (which is quite possible), then they're fine there. If they aren't, then /usr/share is a better place. Although I guess the point is academic since this only works on i386 anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #16 from Brennan Ashton bash...@brennanashton.com 2009-03-13 01:34:26 EDT --- Here is an updated spec and srpm: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/tinycc-0.9.24-4.fc10.src.rpm http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/tinycc.spec The static is required to even think about running, so I merged that into the main package. Devel is need for some programs but not all, I am not sure what to do, it is small and anything requiring stdio.h will require it. I do not see why this would be bad here and ok with gcc? tinycc-devel.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib The program has (from what I understand) and inherent SELinux issue. To run correctly you need to disable the SELinux bool for memheap protection. What should I do with this. You can still compile and run, which defeats most of the purpose (still 10 time faster then gcc for may compiles). As for being arch specific, I could see it go either way. I would be leaning towards yes, because of float.h which sets some variable sizes which may be different in 64bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-09 00:56:23 EDT --- The above links seem to be invalid. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #14 from Brennan Ashton bash...@brennanashton.com 2009-03-09 01:26:16 EDT --- The links were good, my account password expired and it killed them, it should be working in the next hour or two. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #11 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de 2009-02-18 13:42:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) I am wrapping up some other projects early this week, and will get some of my packages reviews such as this one updated. I am removing the NEEDSPONSOR tag, as I have been sponsored for a while now. Thomas, are you wanting to co-maintain or something? Not necessarily, but maybe. Well, I just think I'd occasionally use it, that's why I'd like to see it packaged, and I can help if needed ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #12 from Brennan Ashton bash...@brennanashton.com 2009-02-18 22:58:53 EDT --- Here is an updated spec and srpm: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/tinycc-0.9.24-3.fc10.src.rpm http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/tinycc.spec RPMLINT: tinycc-devel.i386: W: no-documentation tinycc-devel.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib tinycc-static.i386: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. My understanding is that the Error is ok, as it is the same thing that gcc and other compilers do. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 Brennan Ashton bash...@brennanashton.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #10 from Brennan Ashton bash...@brennanashton.com 2009-02-15 02:15:22 EDT --- I am wrapping up some other projects early this week, and will get some of my packages reviews such as this one updated. I am removing the NEEDSPONSOR tag, as I have been sponsored for a while now. Thomas, are you wanting to co-maintain or something? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de 2009-02-11 09:42:43 EDT --- Ping? Brennan, are you still interested in maintaining this package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br Alias||tinycc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Blocks|182235 | --- Comment #8 from Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-01 11:24:04 EDT --- The package naming is not illegal, it is not infringing on any relevant trademarks that I can find in the USTO. However, I can see how it would be misleading, and would suggest that the package be renamed to tinycc. There should be no need to rename the libraries or executable. Lifting FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-29 15:36:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) That *.o pulls the bcheck.o part that give the compile with built-in memory and bounds checker option. Remove it and you will get: tcc -b onemore.c tcc: file '/usr/lib/tcc/bcheck.o' not found it is for debug only so that is why I put it in the devel package, is that wrong? I think it should be in the main package, since you should be able to be able to compile with debug flags without having extra packages installed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 Brennan Ashton [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: tcc - small |Review Request: tinycc - |c compiler that can run c |Tiny C Compiler |scripts | --- Comment #6 from Brennan Ashton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-26 16:04:45 EDT --- Ok I have changed the summary, you are right that is better. On the topic of the name tinytcc could be the name of the package, but what happens to the libtcc* and tcc*.h files? That *.o pulls the bcheck.o part that give the compile with built-in memory and bounds checker option. Remove it and you will get: tcc -b onemore.c tcc: file '/usr/lib/tcc/bcheck.o' not found it is for debug only so that is why I put it in the devel package, is that wrong? a grep check shows nothing like __tcc__ or __tinycc__ in any of the files the executable is /usr/bin/tcc Updated: Spec URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/tcc.spec SRPM URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/tcc-0.9.24-2.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
