[Bug 1823265] New: Review Request: wayvnc - A VNC server for wlroots based Wayland compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823265 Bug ID: 1823265 Summary: Review Request: wayvnc - A VNC server for wlroots based Wayland compositors Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bob.hep...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/wayvnc/fedora-31-x86_64/01335597-wayvnc/wayvnc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/wayvnc/fedora-31-x86_64/01335597-wayvnc/wayvnc-0.1.2-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: This is a VNC server for wlroots based Wayland compositors. It attaches to a running Wayland session, creates virtual input devices and exposes a single display via the RFB protocol. The Wayland session may be a headless one, so it is also possible to run wayvnc without a physical display attached. Fedora Account System Username: wef -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823117] Review Request: opensurge - 2D retro platformer inspired by Sonic games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823117
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ngomp...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa ---
Just dropping in with some notes for improving the spec to comply with Fedora
Packaging Guidelines, as I'm interested in seeing Open Surge land in Fedora. :)
> # There have been some useful changes to CMakeLists.txt since v.0.5.1.2 has
> been released
> Source1:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/alemart/opensurge/1def8579e661e3128e495b7108a1988d40453a65/CMakeLists.txt
Why not just package a snapshot release or cherry-pick patches?
> Provides: bundled(surgescript) = %{ss_version}
I'll reiterate what others have said: It'd be a much better idea to get this
packaged separately and have Open Surge depend on it.
> License: CC-BY-3.0 and CC-BY-SA-3.0 and CC-0 and Public Domain
The license tag is "CC-BY and CC-BY-SA and CC0 and Public Domain"
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
> %setup -q
Use "%autosetup -p1" instead.
> make %{?_smp_mflags}
Use "%make_build"
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1805928] Review Request: elementary-planner - Task manager with Todoist support designed for GNU/Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805928 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ego.cordatus@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #11 from Artem --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > Why are you arbitrarily inventing an "elementary-" prefix for the package > name? Because there is already exist 'planner' package https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/planner Also there is no any special Elementary guidelines in Fedora and how elementary packages MUST named. > And why are you arbitrarily building this with -flto? Why you not ask why arbitrarily mozjs [1] and firefox built with -flto and why LTO by default proposed in F32 [2]? > Packages should be built with fedora default build flags ... This package built with default fedora build flags. Additional build flags not prohibited, i asked this many times other maintainers. [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mozjs68/blob/master/f/mozjs68.spec#_3 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LTOByDefault -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134 --- Comment #6 from Ron Olson --- Hey, thanks for digging into the problem! I figured out which of the lines, specifically, was mangling the output and replaced them with a patch; it now builds correctly with %configure. I've updated the spec and SRPM. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535549] Review Request: mupen64plus - Nintendo 64 Emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535549 --- Comment #24 from Wade Berrier --- Sounds good. I ran the `request-repo` command but it responded with: Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug is not approved yet I guess that's what you mean about the review flag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134 --- Comment #5 from Artur Iwicki --- After some investigation: yep, that's the case. Look at line 18504 and beyond in the configure file (the pre-processed one, not the autoconf one). Inside you'll find this little thing: ># Include CFLAGS / CPPFLAGS in COB_CFLAGS without optimization/debug options. >if test "x$CFLAGS" != "x"; then > cob_temp_flags="$CFLAGS" >else > cob_temp_flags="" >fi >if test "x$CPPFLAGS" != "x"; then > if test "x$cob_temp_flags" != "x"; then > cob_temp_flags="$CPPFLAGS $cob_temp_flags" > else > cob_temp_flags="$CPPFLAGS" > fi >fi >if test "x$cob_temp_flags" != "x"; then > cob_temp_flags=`echo "$cob_temp_flags" | sed -e 's/-g3//' -e 's/-g//' > -e 's/ $//' -e 's/^ //'` > cob_temp_flags=`echo "$cob_temp_flags" | sed -e 's/[+-]O[0-9s]//' -e > 's/ $//' -e 's/^ //'` > cob_temp_flags=`echo "$cob_temp_flags" | sed -e 's/-O//' -e 's/ $//' -e > 's/^ //'` > cob_temp_flags=`echo "$cob_temp_flags" | sed -e > 's/-fmessage-length=0//'` > cob_temp_flags=`echo "$cob_temp_flags" | sed -e > 's/-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=.//'` > cob_temp_flags=`echo "$cob_temp_flags" | sed -e 's/-fstack-protector//'` > cob_temp_flags=`echo "$cob_temp_flags" | sed -e 's/-funwind-tables//'` > cob_temp_flags=`echo "$cob_temp_flags" | sed -e > 's/-fasynchronous-unwind-tables//'` > cob_temp_flags=`echo "$cob_temp_flags" | sed -e 's/ */ /g' -e 's/ $//' > -e 's/^ //'` >fi The configure script is trying to create COB_FLAGS, based on CFLAGS and remove some unwated options, but because the regexes are not specified to match on a word boundary, it ends up mangling the options and producing stuff that the compiler rejects. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134 --- Comment #4 from Artur Iwicki --- Fedora's CFLAGS include "-fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches". It's possible that the upstream autoconf/automake script is subtly broken and mangles the CFLAGS somewhere along the way to produce "-strong record-gcc-switches". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1767234] Review Request: python-volatility3 - Volatility 3: The volatile memory extraction framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767234 --- Comment #7 from Michal Ambroz --- https://github.com/volatilityfoundation/volatility3/issues/208 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820915] Review Request: bettercap - Tool for 802.11, BLE/Ethernet reconnaissance and MITM attacks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820915 josef radinger changed: What|Removed |Added CC||che...@nosuchhost.net --- Comment #2 from josef radinger --- there's a new version of bettercap. great that you package this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535549] Review Request: mupen64plus - Nintendo 64 Emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535549 --- Comment #23 from David Auer --- Dang, I tried to reset the review flag but I can't, now you have to wait Robert-André fixes that. Sorry but I think it was outdated anyway. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535549] Review Request: mupen64plus - Nintendo 64 Emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535549 David Auer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #22 from David Auer --- The package is accepted and you are sponsored, so the next step would be to request a git repository and branches. We actually have two wiki pages describing the process, I'm not sure which one is better so I'll link both: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor The version 2.5 from 2015 is still the latest release by upstream so nothing to be updated here. (Side note: They do have a pre-release for 2.6 called v2.5.9 which is now over a year old. To me, they seem to be releasing quite rarely considering the commit activity of the repository, wonder why that is.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134
--- Comment #3 from Ron Olson ---
Hey Artur-
Thanks for taking a look. I did have %configure initially, but when using that,
the build fails because some of the extra flags that are added:
COB_CFLAGS = -I/usr/include -Wno-unused -fsigned-char -Wno-pointer-sign -pipe
-Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp, -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions
-strong record-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic
-fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -pipe
Specifically, note that it's trying to pass "-strong record-gcc-switches", and
doesn't understand the '-strong' flag and has no idea what to do with
'record-gcc-switches':
make[2]: Entering directory '/home/rolson/rpmbuild/BUILD/gnucobol-2.2/extras'
. ../tests/atconfig && . ../tests/atlocal extras-CBL_OC_DUMP.so \
&& $COBC -m -Wall -O -o CBL_OC_DUMP.so CBL_OC_DUMP.cob
gcc: error: record-gcc-switches: No such file or directory
gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-strong'
make[2]: *** [Makefile:578: CBL_OC_DUMP.so] Error 1
Also, interestingly enough, if I don't have %global debug_package %{nil} at the
top of the file, I get this error at the end of packaging:
error: Empty %files file
/home/rolson/rpmbuild/BUILD/gnucobol-2.2/debugsourcefiles.list
A bit of searching suggests that having %global debug_package %{nil} is the
solution; I can confirm that it does package with the line.
I made the other suggestions, including creating a -devel package for the
headers and libs
I have updated the latest spec and SRPM file
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1801519] Review Request: golang-github-google-licenseclassifier - A License Classifier
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801519 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(quantum.analyst@g ||mail.com) --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Bump, Elliott could you help me finish this 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1802362] Review Request: golang-github-viant-assertly - Arbitraty datastructure validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802362 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- New Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-viant-assertly.spec New SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-viant-assertly-0.5.3-1.fc33.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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 --- Comment #43 from l...@mellanox.com --- Alaa, I downloaded Fedora-33 (Rawhide) x86_64 version and tried it like below. It worked well for me. Below is what I captured. The difference is that it's the x86 version. (I don't have setup to try f33 aarch64 version yet). On the server where the problem exists, have we tried whether the kernel module based driver works or not? If not working, the SmartNIC FW might be stuck. We might need power-cycle to recover. Thanks! # uname -r 5.7.0-0.rc0.git8.1.fc33.x86_64 # cat /etc/redhat-release Fedora release 33 (Rawhide) # cat /dev/rshim0/misc DISPLAY_LEVEL 0 (0:basic, 1:advanced, 2:log) BOOT_MODE 1 (0:rshim, 1:emmc, 2:emmc-boot-swap) BOOT_TIMEOUT100 (seconds) SW_RESET0 (1: reset) DEV_NAMEpcie-00:08.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1802370] Review Request: golang-github-francoispqt-gojay - Fastest JSON encoder/decoder with powerful stream API for Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802370 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(o.lemasle@gmail.c ||om) --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Any update on this review Olivier? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535549] Review Request: mupen64plus - Nintendo 64 Emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535549 --- Comment #21 from Wade Berrier --- What's the next step to get this accepted? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134
Artur Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
--- Comment #2 from Artur Iwicki ---
>%global debug_package %{nil}
This is hardly ever needed. If your rpmbuild is failing due to debuginfo
missing from the executables, then you need to enable debuginfo generation
during build.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_debuginfo_packages
>Source0:http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnucobol/gnucobol-2.2.tar.gz
You can use %{version} as part of the URL so you don't have to edit this line
every time.
>./configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=%{_libdir}
You should probably use %configure here. It sets up both --prefix and --libdir
correctly, and will also make sure Fedora's CFLAGS/LDFLAGS are applied (which
will may fix the missing debuginfo issue).
>%files
>%{_includedir}/libcob.h
>%{_includedir}/libcob
>%{_libdir}/libcob.so
>%{_libdir}/libcob.a
These should probably be separated into some -devel or -libs-devel subpackage.
>%{_datadir}/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/gnucobol.mo
>
>%{_datadir}/locale/en@boldquot/LC_MESSAGES/gnucobol.mo
>
>%{_datadir}/locale/en@quot/LC_MESSAGES/gnucobol.mo
>
>%{_datadir}/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/gnucobol.mo
>
>%{_datadir}/locale/it/LC_MESSAGES/gnucobol.mo
>
>%{_datadir}/locale/ja/LC_MESSAGES/gnucobol.mo
>%{_datadir}/locale/nl/LC_MESSAGES/gnucobol.mo
>%{_datadir}/locale/pt/LC_MESSAGES/gnucobol.mo
You can use a wildcard here: "%{_datadir}/locale/**/LC_MESSAGES/gnucobol.mo".
>%{_mandir}/man1/cobc.1.gz
>%{_mandir}/man1/cobcrun.1.gz
Do not assume that man pages will be gzipped. Use a wildcard that can match any
compression method (including no compression at all).
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 --- Comment #42 from l...@mellanox.com --- Alaa, Looks like this server is running kernel-modules-extra-5.7.0. What OS is it? Is it Fedora-33? Is there a way I could download it and verify it? I just tried this driver on Fedora 31 and CentOS 8.1. All worked well for me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773467] Review Request: avocado-vt - A avocado plugin for virtualization related tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773467 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-16b0770846 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-16b0770846 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-16b0770846 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823001] Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001 --- Comment #9 from Jun Aruga --- Thanks! Now requesting the repository here. ``` $ fedpkg request-repo simde 1823001 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/24277 ``` -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820852] Review Request: golang-github-antchfx-xpath - XPath package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820852 --- Comment #1 from Germano Massullo --- Good day Fabian, could you update your spec and srpm to the lastest 1.1.5 release? 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820852] Review Request: golang-github-antchfx-xpath - XPath package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820852 Germano Massullo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||germano.massu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|germano.massu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823001] Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
Vasiliy Glazov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
Approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 40 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/vascom/1823001-simde/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should
[Bug 1823001] Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001 --- Comment #7 from Vasiliy Glazov --- You don't need ask me every time :) It is normal review process. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823001] Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001 --- Comment #6 from Jun Aruga --- > I think you should drop %files section and move all to -devel. Okay. I fixed it and updated the Spec URL and SRPM URL's files too. I checked rpmlint, installation of binary RPMs and scratch build again. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43283079 Could you review again? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 --- Comment #41 from l...@mellanox.com --- (In reply to Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) from comment #37) > So to recap my previous long comment: > > 1. I think the rshim RPM package should Require the package which will > provide the 'cuse' kernel module, for RHEL-8 that's "kernel-modules-extra". > What about Fedora? > > 2. The rshim RPM package should Require "psmisc" package since it uses > 'killall' utility. > > 3. Red Hat needs to enable CONFIG_DEVMEM on aarch64 builds as well (it's the > only arch that has this config disabled). > > 4. Liming, are you familiar with such an issue where accessing the device > hangs (this does not happen when using the kernel module rshim)? Thanks Alaa! So far we have verified on CentOS-7, RedHat-7 and ubuntu-18 on x86 machine. For #1 & #2. Yes, I'll add the dependency. This module is part of the kernel package in CentOS/RedHat 7. Looks like it has separate package in Fedora 31 and Redhat-8. Fro #4, the hung issue is new to me. I'll install centos 8 today and try to reproduce it. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823001] Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001 --- Comment #5 from Vasiliy Glazov --- I think you should drop %files section and move all to -devel. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823117] Review Request: opensurge - 2D retro platformer inspired by Sonic games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823117
--- Comment #4 from Antonio T. (sagitter) ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
Note: opensurge-0.5.1.2-2.spec should be opensurge.spec
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_spec_file_naming
- Source archives provide files under multiple licenses. Please, include
all licenses and comment about which files are realased under such of them.
- Why you don't package surgescript separately?
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)", "*No copyright*
Creative Commons Attribution Public License (v3.0)", "*No copyright*
Apache License (v2.0)", "SIL Open Font License (v1.1)", "Expat
License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Public License (v1.0)",
"Apache License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No
copyright* do What The Fuck you want to Public License (v2)", "GNU
Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "BSD (unspecified)",
"BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 637 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1823117-opensurge-0.5.1.2-2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from
[Bug 1823001] Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001 --- Comment #4 from Jun Aruga --- > > Use %autosetup instead %setup -q > > > > License file must be installed in all cases so Add it to simde-devel or > > require main package. > > Let me fix it. I fixed it and updated the Spec URL and SRPM URL's files too. For %autosetup, the -S option is introduced as `%autosetup -S git` in both the manual [1] and podman.spec.But I did not use the -S option while using %autosetup, because I did not want to add git-core as BuildRequires for now. I checked rpmlint, installation of binary RPMs and scratch build again. * Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43280155 Vasiliy, could you review again? [1] https://rpm.org/user_doc/autosetup.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682
--- Comment #40 from Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) ---
(In reply to Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) from comment #38)
> For issue #4, I see that there are upstream fixes in the "fuse" driver that
> fixes a deadlock issue.
> Those fixes were already backported to RHEL-8.2, will update my kernel and
> retest.
didn't help..
with kernel-debug, from the first terminal I ran "# cat /dev/rshim0/misc", and
at the same time from another terminal I ran "# sudo minicom --color on
--baudrate 115200 --device /dev/rshim0/console",
then got:
(I lowered hung_task_timeout_secs threshold to 10 seconds):
[ 812.368606] INFO: task cat:5758 blocked for more than 10 seconds.
[ 812.373943] Not tainted 4.18.0-193.el8.aarch64+debug #1
[ 812.379721] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this
message.
[ 812.387436] cat D26640 5758 5687 0x0209
[ 812.392996] Call trace:
[ 812.395347] __switch_to+0x1a0/0x258
[ 812.398983] __schedule+0x918/0x2120
[ 812.402455] schedule+0xf4/0x3a8
[ 812.405722] request_wait_answer+0x29c/0x530 [fuse]
[ 812.410669] fuse_simple_request+0x408/0x970 [fuse]
[ 812.415440] fuse_direct_io+0xd88/0x18c8 [fuse]
[ 812.419997] cuse_read_iter+0xdc/0x110 [cuse]
[ 812.424249] new_sync_read+0x358/0x4b0
[ 812.427976] __vfs_read+0xc4/0xf8
[ 812.431358] vfs_read+0xe0/0x290
[ 812.434486] ksys_read+0xcc/0x178
[ 812.437786] __arm64_sys_read+0x70/0xa0
[ 812.441704] el0_svc_handler+0x160/0x388
[ 812.445511] el0_svc+0x8/0xc
[ 812.448459]
Showing all locks held in the system:
[ 812.454560] 1 lock held by khungtaskd/292:
[ 812.458709] #0: 2000139abda0 (rcu_read_lock){}, at:
debug_show_all_locks+0xd8/0x358
[ 812.467068] 2 locks held by agetty/1645:
[ 812.471036] #0: 80143f62aa90 (>ldisc_sem){}, at:
ldsem_down_read+0x48/0x58
[ 812.479096] #1: 20002e6722e0 (>atomic_read_lock){+.+.}, at:
n_tty_read+0x1ac/0x13f8
[ 812.489254] =
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 --- Comment #39 from Honggang LI --- (In reply to Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) from comment #37) > So to recap my previous long comment: > > 1. I think the rshim RPM package should Require the package which will > provide the 'cuse' kernel module, for RHEL-8 that's "kernel-modules-extra". > What about Fedora? Same as RHEL-8. localhost ~]$ find /lib/modules/ -name '*cuse*' /lib/modules/5.7.0-0.rc0.git8.1.fc33.x86_64/extra/fs/fuse/cuse.ko.xz localhost ~]$ rpm -qf /lib/modules/5.7.0-0.rc0.git8.1.fc33.x86_64/extra/fs/fuse/cuse.ko.xz kernel-modules-extra-5.7.0-0.rc0.git8.1.fc33.x86_64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823001] Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001 --- Comment #3 from Jun Aruga --- Thanks for the review! > Please correct URL to srpm. Sorry that `fedora-review -b 1823001` does not work with the URL with parameters (?foo=bar). Here is the corrected URL. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/junaruga/fedora-simde/master/simde.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/junaruga/fedora-simde/raw/master/simde-0.0.1-1.git29b9110.fc33.src.rpm Description: SIMD Everywhere Fedora Account System Username: jaruga > Use %autosetup instead %setup -q > > License file must be installed in all cases so Add it to simde-devel or > require main package. Let me fix 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 --- Comment #38 from Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) --- For issue #4, I see that there are upstream fixes in the "fuse" driver that fixes a deadlock issue. Those fixes were already backported to RHEL-8.2, will update my kernel and retest. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 --- Comment #37 from Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) --- So to recap my previous long comment: 1. I think the rshim RPM package should Require the package which will provide the 'cuse' kernel module, for RHEL-8 that's "kernel-modules-extra". What about Fedora? 2. The rshim RPM package should Require "psmisc" package since it uses 'killall' utility. 3. Red Hat needs to enable CONFIG_DEVMEM on aarch64 builds as well (it's the only arch that has this config disabled). 4. Liming, are you familiar with such an issue where accessing the device hangs (this does not happen when using the kernel module rshim)? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 --- Comment #36 from Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) --- Hi, I logged in to the system and found the following issues: 1. rshim service start fails: Apr 12 02:39:06 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com rshim[4799]: Probing pcie-01:00.2 Apr 12 02:39:06 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com rshim[4799]: create rshim pcie-01:00.2 Apr 12 02:39:06 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com rshim[4799]: Failed to map RShim registers [root@qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01 ~]# rshim -f modprobe: FATAL: Module cuse not found in directory /lib/modules/4.18.0-147.el8.aarch64 Probing pcie-01:00.2 create rshim pcie-01:00.2 Failed to map RShim registers The reason that a required module is not installed on the system: [root@qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01 ~]# modinfo cuse modinfo: ERROR: Module cuse not found. The fix is: # dnf install -y kernel-modules-extra Then the module will be available: [root@qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01 ~]# modinfo cuse filename: /lib/modules/4.18.0-147.el8.aarch64/kernel/fs/fuse/cuse.ko.xz 2. rshim service stop fails: Apr 12 02:35:57 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com systemd[1]: Stopping rshim driver for BlueField SoC... Apr 12 02:35:57 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com systemd[4383]: rshim.service: Failed to execute command: No such file or directory Apr 12 02:35:57 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com systemd[4383]: rshim.service: Failed at step EXEC spawning /usr/bin/killall: No such file or directory ^^^ Apr 12 02:35:57 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com systemd[1]: rshim.service: Control process exited, code=exited status=203 Apr 12 02:36:55 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com sshd[4384]: Connection closed by 10.35.206.44 port 60160 [preauth] Apr 12 02:36:59 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com sshd[4386]: Accepted password for root from 10.35.206.44 port 60162 ssh2 Apr 12 02:36:59 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com systemd-logind[1469]: New session 5 of user root. Apr 12 02:36:59 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com systemd[1]: Started Session 5 of user root. Apr 12 02:36:59 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com sshd[4386]: pam_unix(sshd:session): session opened for user root by (uid=0) Apr 12 02:37:27 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com systemd[1]: rshim.service: State 'stop-sigterm' timed out. Killing. Apr 12 02:37:27 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com systemd[1]: rshim.service: Killing process 4363 (rshim) with signal SIGKILL. Apr 12 02:37:27 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com systemd[1]: rshim.service: Failed with result 'exit-code'. Apr 12 02:37:27 qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com systemd[1]: Stopped rshim driver for BlueField SoC. The fix is: # dnf install -y psmisc 3. Even after fixing the above, we still fail to load everything: [root@qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01 ~]# rshim -f Probing pcie-01:00.2 create rshim pcie-01:00.2 Failed to map RShim registers From strace on "rshim -f": write(1, "Probing pcie-01:00.2\n", 21Probing pcie-01:00.2 ) = 21 write(1, "create rshim pcie-01:00.2\n", 26create rshim pcie-01:00.2 ) = 26 openat(AT_FDCWD, "/dev/mem", O_RDWR|O_SYNC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) ^^ ^^ mmap(NULL, 1048576, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, -1, 0x8010030) = -1 EBADF (Bad file descriptor) write(1, "Failed to map RShim registers\n", 30Failed to map RShim registers ) = 30 That's because CONFIG_DEVMEM is not enabled in the kernel: [root@qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01 ~]# grep CONFIG_DEVMEM /boot/config-4.18.0-147.el8.aarch64 # CONFIG_DEVMEM is not set --> Note; I see that this config is disabled only on aarch64 in RHEL-8. I created a kernel with this config enabled, and then it worked. [root@qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01 ~]# ls -l /dev/mem crw-r-. 1 root kmem 1, 1 Apr 12 2020 /dev/mem [root@qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01 ~]# systemctl start rshim [root@qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01 ~]# systemctl status rshim ● rshim.service - rshim driver for BlueField SoC Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/rshim.service; disabled; vendor preset: disabled) Active: active (running) since Sun 2020-04-12 05:36:57 EDT; 4s ago Docs: man:rshim(8) Process: 5783 ExecStart=/usr/sbin/rshim $OPTIONS (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Main PID: 5784 (rshim) Tasks: 6
[Bug 1823117] Review Request: opensurge - 2D retro platformer inspired by Sonic games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823117
Andrea Musuruane changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||musur...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Andrea Musuruane ---
Thanks for your effort to package opensurge. I had a go a couple of months ago.
If you could unbundle surgescript, the package would be more readable.
BR gcc is not needed (pulled in by gcc-c++).
License is GPLv3+
You can simplify building with something like:
%build
%cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{_bindir} --build build .
%make_build
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823001] Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vasc...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vasc...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Vasiliy Glazov --- Please correct URL to srpm. Use %autosetup instead %setup -q License file must be installed in all cases so Add it to simde-devel or require main 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ahleihel@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #35 from Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) --- (In reply to Honggang LI from comment #34) > Hi, Alaa > > I tried to test rshim user space driver with machine > qualcomm-amberwing-rep2-01 . > But I can't get the /dev/rshim* file. Could you please have a look? > > thanks Hi Honggang LI, Sure, I will log in to the system and check why it's not working. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1559681] Review Request: python3-configobj - Config file reading, writing, and validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1559681 Carl George changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||c...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2020-04-12 06:30:13 --- Comment #1 from Carl George --- I don't need this anymore. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1777350] Review Request: python3-gunicorn - Python WSGI application server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1777350 Carl George changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||c...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-04-12 06:28:52 --- Comment #1 from Carl George --- Looks like someone else took care of this. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-474c4a50aa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
